Inside Iraqi Torture Chambers

[John D Harris]

Dadgomit TL, I was going to post this later when I got home, You bet me to it

Oh yea, BAD BAD TL you made a terrible Faux Pas going directly to a Triple Dog Dare. I hear by sentence you to licking a frozen flag pole.

Pritchke you are right, we will see. All I know for sure is that the US government (and much of the populace) will not want France having anyting to do with reconstruction.

[Wutang]

Pritchke - diplomacy wasn't going to work. To be honest, Hans Blix wasn't doing he job as objectively as he should have been. He was trying too hard to look good in front of the cameras.

Given another 3-6 months as he suggested, I just don't see the US army waiting around in Kuwait doing nothing. Not to mention the logistics, costs, and morale on the troops.

It might as well pack up and leave and Saddam would have won a great PR victory. Not much incentive for Saddam to disclose any more info once that happened.

[ 04-09-2003, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Wutang ]

[Mordenheim]

Originally posted by MagiK: Pritchke you are right, we will see. All I know for sure is that the US government (and much of the populace) will not want France having anyting to do with reconstruction.

More then that

I heard a few of the Iraqi Americans who are going over there state the exact same thing. They don't want france, germany, or china (why china? they were pretty quiet) involved at all. Some hard feeling's

Like I said 1000 times. Had Sadam disarmed and we waited then the people would have never got rid of Sadam. They KNOW who shed blood there and as I watch British and American flags held by Iraqi's walk down the street...

Oh and what happen to another vietnam? the bloody bath at Baghdad? while I look for bandit problems to exist for awhile Baghdad was far from heavily defended.

[ 04-09-2003, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Mordenheim ]

[pritchke]

LOL Understandable!

I still think the French will be involved in some way through the UN. I think there are still talks about UN involvement especially since Blair needs to do what he can so has not to get crucified in the next election.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by pritchke: LOL Understandable! I still think the French will be involved in some way through the UN. I think there are still talks about UN involvement especially since Blair needs to do what he can so has not to get crucified in the next election.

I would imagine that Blair could give a rat's rear end whether Chiraq gets anything or not. I'm sure we'll have to give some kind of bone to the UN, but I don't think it will be much. Just enough to get Blair off the hook at home. Most of the contracts for reconstruction will be let to American, british and Aussie Companies.

[Skunk]

I'm sure we'll have to give some kind of bone to the UN, but I don't think it will be much.

Oh a bit more than you think. Without the UN recognising the transition government, the World Bank, IMF etc can't get involved. The oil for food accounts can't be assigned to anything other than food and medicine and other non-sanctioned goods.

In other words, either the US underwrites multi-billion dollar loans to Iraq - or no-one is will lend the reconstruction money. Remember, Iraq can't just 'turn on the oil taps to full' to pay for reconstruction - there are many factors that prevent this (not least the adverse effects to the US economy and US oil companies if it did).

Someone will have to cosy up to France and Russia in the SC - guess that will be Blair's job, eh?

[Animal]

A Triple Dog Dare????

*Uses best DeNiro voice*

Are you talking to me...?

Nobody denies the nature of Saddam's regime. That was never in question.

Like Donut said, had Bush an co. stated from the start that this war was about human rights, most everyone would agree but it wasn't about HR it was about WoMD. To change the reasoning behind the war half way through it doesn't, in my eyes, still doesn't justify it.

The west (I use that term broadly) could have put an end to Saddam during the original gulf war, but decided not to. That decision had consequences, and even though the situation is being solved as we speak (type), the responsibility of those consequences cannot be ignored.

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Animal: A Triple Dog Dare???? *Uses best DeNiro voice* Are you talking to me...? Nobody denies the nature of Saddam's regime. That was never in question. Like Donut said, had Bush an co. stated from the start that this war was about human rights, most everyone would agree but it wasn't about HR it was about WoMD. To change the reasoning behind the war half way through it doesn't, in my eyes, still doesn't justify it. The west (I use that term broadly) could have put an end to Saddam during the original gulf war, but decided not to. That decision had consequences, and even though the situation is being solved as we speak (type), the responsibility of those consequences cannot be ignored.

You mean like Saddam gassing all the Kurds, killing traitors, and forcing the UN to impose sanctions after GW1 which would have never happen if we pressed on to remove Saddam.

[ 04-09-2003, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Animal]

Originally posted by pritchke: Quote: Originally posted by Animal: A Triple Dog Dare???? *Uses best DeNiro voice* Are you talking to me...? Nobody denies the nature of Saddam's regime. That was never in question. Like Donut said, had Bush an co. stated from the start that this war was about human rights, most everyone would agree but it wasn't about HR it was about WoMD. To change the reasoning behind the war half way through it doesn't, in my eyes, still doesn't justify it. The west (I use that term broadly) could have put an end to Saddam during the original gulf war, but decided not to. That decision had consequences, and even though the situation is being solved as we speak (type), the responsibility of those consequences cannot be ignored.

You mean like Saddam gassing all the Kurds, killing traitors, and forcing the UN to impose sanctions after GW1 which would have never happen if we pressed on to remove Saddam.[/QUOTE]Since I believe the gassing of Kurds happened before the Gulf War, that wouldn't have changed. The death of thousands due to sanctions, the deaths of those from the end of the Gulf War to today are partly our responsibility for allowing an obviously evil dictator to remain in power when the opportunity to remove him was there.